UAPA | 'Prolonged Detention Can't Outweigh National Security': Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses Bail In IED Blast Case

The Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected an appeal against rejection of bail by Special Judge (NIA), Raipur to three persons allegedly involved in attacking security force with IED blast which killed an ITBP Constable.While denying relief to the appellants, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that prolonged detention or socio-economic hardship cannot outweigh the concerns relating to national security. In the words of the Court –“Mere prolonged detention or socio-economic hardship cannot outweigh the serious and grave nature of allegations involving offences against national security. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that when there is reasonable ground to believe that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true under UAPA, the Court shall not grant bail to the appellants.”In the afternoon of November 17, 2023, a team of security forces was returning after conclusion of voting. Near Badegobra, a pre-planted Improvised Explosive Device (IED) blew up causing grievous injury to ITBP Constable Jogendra Kumar who subsequently attained martyrdom.A criminal case was registered against the accused persons, including the present appellants, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B, 121, 121-A of the IPC read with Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 along with Sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 38, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).The appellants were taken into custody on June 14, 2024. They subsequently filed an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) praying for bail. The application was rejected by the Special Judge (NIA), Raipur. Impugning the rejection order, they filed an appeal before the High Court under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act.The Court, at the outset, referred to the stringent provision under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA which says that no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of the UAPA shall be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173 of the CrPC is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.“...where there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations are prima facie true, the bar under Section 43D(5) squarely applies, and the Court is prohibited from enlarging such accused on bail. The legislative intent is clear: in cases involving terrorism-related offences, the threshold for bail is significantly heightened in comparison to ordinary criminal cases,” the Court opined.To emphasize the need for greater restraint in granting bail for serious offences under special enactments, the Court cited the observations made by the Apex Court in National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) and Afzal Khan @ Babu Murtuzakhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat (2007).Reference was also made to Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 100 in which the Supreme Court denied bail to an accused on the ground that the material on record prima facie indicated his complicity as he was knowingly aiding the preparatory act towards the commission of a terrorist act under Section 18 of the UAPA.In the present case, the Bench was satisfied that the materials on record prima facie indicate the involvement of the accused persons in the terrorist act, including the IED blast which led to the martyrdom of a Constable.“The appellants' association with the proscribed terrorist organization CPI (Maoist), their alleged role in providing logistics, materials such as detonators, wires, and other support essential for the execution of the offence, along with their participation in conspiracy meetings, has been substantiated through statements of protected witnesses, recoveries made pursuant to their disclosures, and other documentary evidence,” it observed.Accordingly, the Court upheld the conclusion reached at by the impugned order which denied bail to the appellants. The Court also made it clear that mere prolonged detention or socio-economic factors like dependency of family on the appellants cannot be overweighing criteria to overshadow the interests of national security.The trial Court was, nevertheless, directed to expedite the trial and conclude the proceedings preferably within a period of six months.Case Title: Bhupendra Netam @ Bhupendar Dhruw & Ors. v. Union of India Case No: CRA No. 318 of 2025Date of Judgment: July 21, 2025Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. Ravipal Maheswari, AdvocateCounsel for the Respondent: Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, AdvocateClick Here To Read/Download Order

UAPA | 'Prolonged Detention Can't Outweigh National Security': Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses Bail In IED Blast Case

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags